Tuesday, October 31, 2006

So, yeah...that picture is pretty much the extent of my costume this year much to the boys' dismay. The Man, on the other hand, decided to partake for some reason unbeknownst to me.

The older one is going out as Leather Face (today I am on the hunt for an apron that doesn't say "Kiss the Cook" and fake blood) and the little one a skeleton with a bleeding face. Since I have two boys I was surprised when I read an article a while back in the NYT that discussed how girls' costumes (even very young girls) were all sexed up these days. (My boys get upset when people have "cute" costumes as they subscribe to the actual spirit of the holiday being about ghouls and goblins and not pink ponies.)

"...I noticed that on the outside of every package was a photo of a woman modeling not only the costume, but teetering heels and bras of the push-up variety. The First Lady costume was not, as one might expect, a red business suit, but a pink crepe mini-dress. At least it had the matching pillbox hat. The angel was dubbed “heaven’s hottie.” Even the witch had a slit up her tattered skirt.

My girls were confused. “Where are the monsters?” they asked. “Where are the superheroes?” I pointed weakly to Wonder Woman and her thigh-high boots. “She’s pretty,” said my 4-year-old. Before adding, “You can see her breasts.”

As I watched them scan the selections, soaking in the unspoken message, I remembered my freshman year in college, going to a Halloween party dressed as a pumpkin. My face was painted orange. My torso was covered in fabric stuffed into a wide, round orb. It was not seductive. And it hadn’t occurred to me that it should be. There were no adult pumpkin costumes in the superstores. No vegetable costumes of any sort.

We moved along the aisle. I casually searched for the male equivalent of the Stewardess. Perhaps a Hot Fireman costume? Or maybe Handyman? But there was no Pool Boy. No Sexy C.E.O. There were, in fact, very few men’s costumes at all. A gorilla. A generic monster. A handful of serial killers.

We gave up on the mouse ears. Walking back, I noticed in the middle of the boas and six-inch heels and fishnets hung a Nun costume. It was a floor-length robe with modified wimple. Unlike the other ensembles, which offered bust and hip measurements, it was one size fits most. The price: a modest $9.99. According to the Target Web site, it is a best seller. Probably among men..." (source)

Or this article from the Arizona Central:"...With names like "Transylvania Temptress," "Handy Candy," "Major Flirt," and "Red Velvet Devil Bride," there is no doubt that costumes marketed to children and teens have become more suggestive.

Such costumes, which typically feature plunging necklines, fishnet stockings, knee-high boots and very short skirts, dominate the display at most costume shops and party supply stores, and parents are having a hard time avoiding them." (source)

Did those of you with little girls find this to be true? I never thought I'd be relieved to be walking around with Leather face, but I can't see that being a pedophile turn on...

Last week J. Marquis emailed me a link to the now infamous Michael J. Fox commercial. I could only get through a few seconds of it. It's too hard to watch Alex P. Keaton that way...

Then of course the "controversy" erupted over Rush Limbaugh's description of the commercial. Please people. You've never acted out a motion you couldn't adequately describe with words to let the person you’re telling get the full effect of the event? I do it all the time. Once at a Driver's License Center a guy asked me to sign something and slapped a flipper-like hand onto the table...there was a pen in it. Now, this story has much more impact when I tell it in person and use my left arm to pull my right arm forcefully onto the table with a loud thwap. I'm not making fun of the guy...just letting the person I'm relaying the story to experience a little of the shock I did at the time. That is what Rush was doing. (Remember, I chastised my own party when they blew the whole Joe Biden 7-Eleven thing out of proportion too.)

Rush also said that Fox was exaggerating the Parkinson's effects for the camera --which was true (It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out--Everyone that's watched Boston Legal knows he wasn't showing the symptoms on the show). Fox admitted in his autobiography that when he speaks about the disease he stops taking his meds so people see the debilitating nature of the disease. I get that. The problem with that thinking is....the commercial was so utterly depressing and distracting that when I was done watching I had no clue what it was for. A candidate? A proposition? A PSA?

The debate SHOULDN'T be about Michael J. Fox and his understandable need to put hope into embryonic stem cells, or Rush Limbaugh's animated story telling...but about the proposal on the Missouri ballot that I posted about two weeks ago. The one that Michael J. Fox just admitted that he never even read before he made the commercial and started advocating for it. The bill that most Missourians think will outlaw cloning, but will actually require the government to PAY FOR cloning.

I wonder if all the left-wing sites that chastised Rush for "being mean" will now lecture Fox for making a commercial in support of something he never even read...

Monday, October 30, 2006

When My Space sold to Rupert Murdoch and You Tube sold to Google, most people were thinking "Why can't I come up with a brilliant idea?" Imagine you came up with YouTube and then those guys got the credit and the 1.6 billion dollars...would you be content just knowing you had the viable idea?

There has only been one reoccurring feature here on Blonde Sagacity. My brainchild, my baby and one of my favorite things to post... "In the Sandbox". It's a showcasing of milblog excerpts and letters written by Soldiers, Marines, and Airmen currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan (with a bit of eye candy for good measure). I'm not sure how many I've done over the past two years, but I have to assume it's in the hundreds...

Slate.com has a "new" feature offered up by Doonesbury's Gary Trudeau. It's called "The Sandbox" and it's content? Well, excerpts from milblogs of Soldiers, Marines and Airmen currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan (though, there's no eye candy). Wow, that sounds SO familiar... Where have I seen the same title, concept and content? Oh that's right, RIGHT HERE for the past freakin' two years.

At first I really didn't want to say anything because lots of the milbloggers I like were getting their 15 minutes. But then I thought, screw that...stealing is stealing (--even if it was inadvertent?) The more I think about it, the more upset I get. Maybe my Milblog friends that knew full well it was my idea should have refused to partake in the heisted project out of solidarity...?

Someone said I should be content in the knowledge that I had a valid idea. Why would I be content with that? I've put thousands of hours into this site with not a penny to show in hopes of a viable idea --and now someone else is being compensated for the time and effort?

This is the problem with being a nobody...a somebody can come along and take whatever they want from you...and know that you can't afford a lawyer to prove it.

Seeing all the same sites on the left that chastised me for my feature (telling me calling it 'The Sandbox' was trivializing the war, and I shouldn't be equating civilian deaths to a child's play toy) now heralding "Trudeau's genius" is frustrating enough to make me nix the blog...

Sorry, I know no one else gives a crap about this, but the situation has me truly pissed off (and that doesn't happen all that often). I have no other recourse than to bitch and moan and feel slighted.

The other night The Man and I watched Dateline's 'To Catch a Predator' III (a show hosted by Chris Hansen in which a decoy, claiming she is 13, is used to see what adults will come to her house to have sex with her -they are then confronted with their printed IMs and emails and then arrested). On this particular installment, the would-be child molesters were overwhelmingly Indian. Was it the area they were in? Are men of Indian heritage more likely to indulge in sex with underage girls? I have no idea, but I decided to look up what the age of consent in India is... it's 16.

While I was looking for this information I came across a page that has some pretty wild "age of consent" information for every country and all the United States.

First, I had no idea that in many countries --and even in many American states-- the age of consent has a little play (I guess to avoid statutory rape charges). There are more countries than I thought in which homosexuality is illegal -in many of those states girl on girl sex is outlawed too, but in a few lesbianism is okay and male on male is illegal. Many of the countries have different vaginal and anal consent laws regardless of the sexual orientation.

The Philippines, Mexico and Canada have the lowest age of consent ...12. The average age is 16 for most of the countries and states listed. Only in Saudi Arabia there is no legal age...every age is illegal unless you're married, but I guess you can legally marry an 8 year old?

Some countries have different ages of consent for male and female citizens (the lower age (normally a two year difference) being for the boys of course --strange considering I thought the fact that that girls matured faster was general consensus.

The Dominican republic, Haiti, Iraq, Turkey, Uganda, Vietnam and (get this) California are the most conservative -with the age of consent at 18.

I think I agree with the median age...16 (if the partner is 18 or under). This is shown in the chart as 16/18. What do you think the lowest legal age should be? Do you think this is something that the federal government should regulate or should it be a state's rights issue?

For those on the mid to far left that refuse to believe most of the country doesn't agree with you...ponder this:

1) Fox News consistently beats everyone else in ratings. Now, CNN has asked Laura Ingraham to "be a regular" on a show that would go up against O'Reilly. CNN recruiting hardcore conservatives when they have lucrative draws like Larry King and Wolf Blitzer...? Imagine that... (Needless to say, she's declining)

2) If the Democrats do take the House or the Senate they are looking for moderate to conservative Democratic leadership --and many in the party are saying that if members like Nancy Pelosi take over the seats that are gained in '06 will be lost in /08...

"...The new Democratic majority, should it occur, will consist of a fresh crop of moderate and conservative members whose elections will have been won in part by distancing themselves from the party's progressive wing.

Faced with possible Republican control of the Senate, the president's veto pen and most likely a narrow edge in the House, many Democrats insist they must moderate their agenda and reach out to Republicans to expand their majority and improve their chances of winning the White House in 2008.

"The only thing worse than not taking back the House would be taking it back for one term,'' warned Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, an officer in the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 37 conservative and moderate House Democrats. "I think even the most 'liberal' person in our caucus understands that. There's folks who may not believe that things are going as fast as they want them to go, but they understand we have to be pragmatists." (Read the entire article)

So, if you want higher ratings...hire very vocal conservatives and if you want to win and keep Congressional seats...act like Republicans. Interesting.

Life has been so hectic with my new niece, Halloween, Mason's birthday and all my new-found volunteer work that I have neglected a few things...

First, I wanted to send my (belated) best wishes for a quick recovery to 1Sgt. Keith who had knee replacement surgery. The Man had knee surgery last year and it was rough...so we know what you're going through and send our best wishes! (Also Happy (belated) Birthday...I hope it was a great day!)

Second, I wanted to let you all know about NPR. I thank you immensely for all your input and... I decided to do it. As of now I am not sure whether they will run a 3 minute monologue that we did yesterday --or if I'll actually be on live opposite a far-left Philly Blogger. I won't know for sure until later this afternoon. The show is Open Source with Christopher Lydon and it's on from 7-8pm EST (and available for download the next day). I'll let you guys know as soon as I do...

Third, I miss Kat around here...She hasn't blogged since July and I am hoping that everything is okay and she just got sick of the blogosphere. So Kat, if you're out there --the site isn't the same without your insight!

And last, I hear that my Grandmother is giving the 55 and older crowd down in Florida hell for not knowing what "Blogs" are. How cool is that?

Sunday, October 29, 2006

I always refer to the act of thinking of devastating events to put your own in perspective as "My Life as a Dog" thinking (A reference to one of my favorite foreign films in which the main character does just that to get through the trying events in his young life).

The Man says problems are all relative, but I disagree. We once went to one of his clients' houses right after we had Justice, we were really struggling to stay afloat at the time, and all the woman could talk about was how her weekend had been ruined because her towel warmers weren't working. Towel warmers?! I was so angry by the time we left. The Man went on about the fact that to her it was a major problem. Ugh, give me a break. Even when really terrible things happen to me I think of that --and think "this is just towel warmers compared to people in Darfur"... Wow, that sounds really granola crunchy, but it helps keep me grateful for what I have even when things aren't perfect.

Hmmm, I really went off on a tangent when I was just going to post some funny "My Life as Dog" pictures to get you all feeling better about going back to your jobs tomorrow...

So I guess I'll pose the question: Are all problems relative? Are there a such things as major and minor problems or does it only matter how they impact the person?

Saturday, October 28, 2006

The "rebuilding" at Ground Zero has been stalled again. In the past few weeks there has been More than 200 pieces of human remains unearthed at the site. (I can't help but think this would have been a perfect dumping ground for murder victims post-9/11...but I am sure Dick Wolf thought of that first...)

"...The Twin Towers in New York City were hit by hijacked passenger jets and collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, killing 2,749 people. Some 1,150 of the victims have either not been identified or not recovered.

A spokeswoman for New York's Chief Medical Examiner's Office said that on Thursday an additional nine pieces of bone were found, bringing the total for the week to 202 pieces, ranging from 1 inch (2.5 cm) to 12 inches (30 cm) in length.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has defended the clean-up of the site, although he said he was at a loss to explain why the bones had not been discovered sooner.

The manholes where the bones were first discovered last Thursday had been covered by a temporary road built after the attacks to allow in cranes to start removing debris.

"Who is going to be held responsible for the emotional, mental and physical damage this has done to the families?" said Adele Milanowycz on putitaboveground.org, a Web site posting updates for families on the searches.

"Why is this not front-page news? We read about bodies being found in Iraq in mass graves and we are horrified. How is this not horrifying the world?" wrote Milanowycz, who lost her son Greg in the attacks.

Bloomberg has said the city would not shut down construction while searches continued on the western edge of the site where commemoration ceremonies for the families of victims are held on each anniversary of the attacks.

The discovery is the latest setback for the rebuilding effort at the World Trade Center site. Construction of a new Freedom Tower began in April after bickering over financing, security and design delayed plans." (source)

The fact that five years later we are still bickering about reconstruction annoys the hell out of me. It seems to me the "Freedom Tower" will never be brought to fruition --and I've never understood why only one "Freedom Tower"?

The other night, the boys and I were watching Adam Sandler's movie "Click" and near the end of the film the camera scans the New York City skyline circa 2023 --in the shot there are two Freedom Towers standing tall. My breath actually caught in my throat. Until that moment I don't think I fully realized how important the rebuilding is to the country's healing. Seeing those towers erected again was awesome...even if it was only a movie...

Friday, October 27, 2006

Have you heard some of Leno's & Hannity's random street interviews? The average American knows nothing. It's not funny, it's sad and pathetic.

It's not campaign managers' fault commercials are full of lies --they're just doing their jobs...if the American people weren't so daft, they could never get away with it. Here's a perfect example:

There was a clandestine, middle of the night pay raise here in the Pennsylvania State Senate. Pennsylvanian's were pissed (I wasn't so mad about the raise--just the shady was it was procured). Our governor, Ed Rendell (also known as Fast Eddie), signed the raise, then when the firestorm began he defended the raise stating that it "was legal". NOW, he's running a commercial against Lynn Swann that states, "Swann supports the politicians that took the pay raise" OMG, are you kidding me? First of all, they all took it -Dems and Repubs alike...but HE SIGNED THE DAMN THING. Swann wasn't even around back then --and he is so bold as to put it in his commercials. It's very Twilight Zone.

And why is that? Because he knows his constituents will have no clue.

I HATE voter drives. I have been asked to participate in so many and I always say no. Anyone that can't figure out how to register (you can even do it on MySpace now),without me knocking down their door, has no business in a voting booth. What's the point--it's like filling in designs on the math section of your SATs?

I wish we could raise the bar. I wish there was a small current events quiz right in the booth that would turn green or red if you were savvy enough to vote. Anyone that wouldn't want that must just need the numbers --I don't care about the numbers...I want informed voters (and to my lib brother's credit, he agrees). The Democratic process, blah, blah... It's also part of the process to know who the hell you're voting for too.

I haven't lost a son in Iraq (which is the reason I "glorify" those that are there), and some may say it's not fair to make comparisons…and everyone grieves in their own way...

But in a perfect world the grief would reflect the spirit of the lost loved one.

If Casey Sheehan had been against the war and sent to Iraq against his beliefs, I would totally understand how Cindy has politicized his death. But Casey re-upped after the war began. Casey knew he was going. Casey wanted to go...and that must burn her up more than anything Bush could do.

Gina Barnhurst won't ever get the on-air time Sheehan has, but the loss of her son was no less tragic. And she's handling it with grace, in a way I can only assume would make him proud as hell...

"...When Lance Cpl. Eric W. Herzberg decided to join the Marines while a student at Severna Park High School, his first mission was to ease the concerns of his mother, Gina Barnhurst.

"Gina was anxious to talk him out of it," said Doug Barnhurst, Herzberg's uncle. "She was worried about it. She was worried that he didn't know what he was getting into. But he convinced her it was a calling."

Yesterday, three days after the 20-year-old infantryman (3rd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force based at Camp Lejeune, N.C. ) died while conducting combat operations in Iraq's Anbar province, it was his mother who conveyed the meaning behind that calling.

"We are deeply saddened by the loss of our wonderful Eric, yet we are so incredibly proud of him. He was proud to be a Marine and to serve his country, which he loved dearly. He was a happy, quiet young man with a deep compassion for others and a deep faith in God...

On his mother's car was a more succinct message in the form of two bumper stickers: "My Son Is A US Marine," and "My Son Defends Our Freedom." (source)

Rest in peace Lance Cpl. Herzberg...your memory and sacrifice has been respected and honored.

I used to be a big Oprah fan. Nothing impresses me more than a woman that beats the odds (tons of odds) and becomes incredibly successful. I still give her much credit for a lot of what she's done with her fame (and money), but I haven't watched her show in over two years.

Now, even when I watched Oprah it was for the heartwarming stories...I was never expecting a hard-hitting interview. Let's face it, as talented as she is, the woman throws more softballs than a local bar league. That was never more glaring that the "Vote" show in 2004 when the Mensa-genius Cameron Diaz told Oprah's audience that [if Bush won, rape would be legal] and Oprah responded with [it's your voice that counts]? What? You don't call her on that? I know, I've kvetched about this before but it's so incredibly irresponsible for a talk show icon that influences thousands (millions?) of hero-worshipping housewives to allow such blatant disinformation.

Appearing on Oprah today is the ever-pompous Bill O'Reilly (and I say that in an endearing way) in a town Hall style setting. Regardless of what you think of his egotistical style (I happen to aspire to it), Bill says what he thinks and doesn't capitulate to celebs. A right-leaning voice on Oprah is a rare event --and I intend break my Oprah fast and will be watching today...

I hear it looks like they had plants in the audience and from some of the left'o'sphere posts I found that seems to be the case. Isn't it laughable they think they can ruffle O'Reilly? Don't they think there's a reason they're blogging in their PJs and he's the #1 cable news host in the country...those silly little liberals.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Last night I was trying to think of all the pros and cons of erecting the (700 mile) border fence that is specified in the bill that Bush will sign into law today (The Secure Fence Act)...

For:-Slow the spread of (previously defunct) infectious diseases-Cut the drain on monetary resources (especially in health care)-Return to controlled immigration giving a better chance of assimilation-Toughen defense against drug smuggling-Toughen defense against would-be terrorists-Force Mexico to deal with their own failing economy

SO, I came up a little short on the cons. However, I do have solutions for all three of them. As for the "jobs Americans won't do" --we have inmates do them. As for Mexico's feelings --well, they'll get over it and maybe they'll have to work a little harder on their own country. Last, we get the funding from all the money we save in health care and legal bills (just the money saved from incarcerating illegals should build the wall and then some...)

From Lou Dobbs:"...Between 12 million and 20 million illegal aliens are living in the United States.Illegal aliens are an important part of a one trillion-dollar underground economy in America, according to Barron's. Illegal employers hire illegal aliens who pay little or no income taxes, and whose children are provided free schooling. Illegal aliens receive medical and social services, and over the past decade have displaced more than two million low-skilled American workers from their jobs." (source)

First of all I have to thank Jules Crittenden for introducing me to a new word...I love when that happens. I guess I should also thank my father who, during my childhood, always responded with "look it up" when I asked the meaning of a word I came across while I was reading...

Anyway, Jules is reporting that the ombudsman of the NYT, Byron Calame, has actually apologized for the leaking of National Security...

"...Calame, in the throes of some inexplicable crisis of conscience, has admitted his newspaper was wrong to reveal a secret U.S. government program to monitor bank transactions of terrorists, and that he was not only wrong but hypocritical to defend it. He did not mention hopelessly lacking in perspective, but I’ll get to that.

Calame has acknowledged that the United States government’s Swift program to monitor overseas banking transactions in order to zero in on suspected terrorists was legal, under appropriate oversight, and posed no threat to law-abiding Americans. He acknowledged that, but for his prejudices, he could have arrived at this conclusion upon reading the original article. He acknowledged that it was a bad idea for the New York Times to reveal this program to our enemies, over the objections of our government, four months ago...

...With Byron Calame’s remarkable admission, we see what could be the beginnings of an awakening. I’m not holding my breath. But I’m an optimist. And I think I just saw a hairline crack in the arrogance of one of America’s most powerful media institutions." (Read the Entire Piece)

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Planned Parenthood employees have been caught on tape offering to help a 13-year-old girl and her 22-year-old "boyfriend" cover up his crime:

"If you come in with your older boyfriend, we're not going to say you can't be with him" "Your parents will not know about anything" "If they find out that he's 22, he can go to jail" "We're not the police, hon" "As long as you're 12 years and older" "We don't have to tell your parents anything" "In the state of California, the parents have no right." (Over 90 phone calls recorded -This one the woman says "no age limit, no parental consent needed" -beware it will make you puke.)

On November 7th California Voters will be asked to vote on Proposition 85 (The Parent's Right to Know and Child Protection Initiative)... and they should ALL be checking the "YES" button. Currently, under California law a child only needs to be 12 years old to obtain an abortion WITHOUT parental consent.

Now most opponents of the No-Notification laws point out that the same young girl couldn't pierce her ears, go on a field trip or even receive an aspirin in her school without parental consent...and that's all true --but there's a much more sinister sub-plot here.

This law allows pedophiles to cover up their crime for the cost of the "procedure":

"In one tragic case, which is fairly typical, an adult soccer coach in his early 20s seduced a 13-year-old soccer player and got her pregnant. He forced her to go to the local Planned Parenthood, where he paid for her abortion.

And Planned Parenthood even obliged the soccer coach after the abortion by giving his 13-year-old victim an injection of Depo Provera - a powerful birth control drug - so he could continue committing this criminal act! Planned Parenthood kept everything under wraps.

The truth about this soccer coach's outrageous abuse of this teen girl came out when a conscientious teacher learned of if and blew the whistle."

Planned Parenthood has put $528,971.34 into blocking this bill. (source) Why do you think that is?

My sister and I often argue because she thinks I "take the man's side" in too many rape allegations... I guess it's because I have known too many women that would use such allegations, not to get the "rapist" in trouble, but to inspire sympathetic and heroic Lancelot-esque feelings in their significant other (or would-be significant other).

I AM NOT saying I don't think rape happens, of course it does...but I believed Kobe and I believed the Duke Lacrosse team. I have been around enough emotional opportunists to spot one. Here's the thing though, EVERY woman should hate these women because each time they cry "rape" when it isn't true -they belittle the real tragedies other women have endured. They make it harder for the genuine victims to prove their case. They lower the public sympathy factor. They should be held to the standards the so-called rapist would have been...

Take 22 year old Ashley Elrod from Kill Devil Hills. She met a sailor online and the "fell in love" (they met for the first time in court with her sailor, Cooper Jackson, facing murder charges). Ashley told Jackson she had been raped by a Marine while two other marines held her down. This was a complete fabrication -which she has now admitted...she "didn't like who [she] was and needed the attention". (source 1, source 2)

Subsequently the Sailor somehow decided the perpetrator had been 23 year old Cpl. Justin L. Huff and Elrod let me run with that story (though neither had ever met him). Jackson them handcuffed the marine and proceeded to slit his throat -twice.

The sickest part of the story is that Ashley Elrod, hotel clerk extraordinaire and needy sicko, has not been charged. Isn't there an "instigating a homicide" charge?

Can I scream to the feminists one more time!? Where are you?! What are you waiting for before you speak out against Islam and what it does to women?! How many more girls must be mutilated and die?

I really can't take these stories anymore. I really try to live a "color blind" life, but I can no longer live a "religion blind" life. I HATE Islam and all its tenets.... And don't believe the hype that it's only radical fundamentalists that believe many of these twisted things that reduce women to lower than dogs...

"A father stands accused of the unthinkable: brutally cutting his daughter's genitals.

The girl was only 2.

Adem, 30, was charged with aggravated battery and cruelty to children more than three years ago and, if convicted, could face 40 years in prison. He was born in Ethiopia, where circumcision is a common procedure for young girls.

Khalid Adem is accused of circumcising his 2-year-old daughter with scissors.Police say Adem circumcised his daughter with scissors in his Duluth apartment, while someone else held the girl's legs. The mother went to a doctor who confirmed that the girl had been circumcised. The girl then told Gwinnett authorities that her father had done it. He was arrested in March 2003." (source)

The trial began in Georgia on Monday -the first of its kind in the U.S. I'd like to circumcise this guy with some dull rusty scissors...

The British Journal of Criminology has just published a report stating that "HALF a billion dollars spent buying back hundreds of thousands of guns (more than 600,000 mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns) had no effect on the homicide rate" in Australia.

"...Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA, the conclusion being that the gun buyback and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia," the study says.

In his first year in office, the Prime Minister, John Howard, forced through some of the world's toughest gun laws, including the national buyback scheme, after Martin Bryant used semi-automatic rifles to shoot dead 35 people at Port Arthur.

Although furious licensed gun-owners said the laws would have no impact because criminals would not hand in their guns, Mr Howard and others predicted the removal of so many guns from the community, and new laws making it harder to buy and keep guns, would lead to a reduction in all types of gun-related deaths.

One of the authors of the study, Jeanine Baker, said she knew in 1996 it would be impossible for years to know whether the Prime Minister or the shooters were right.

"I have been collecting data since 1996 … The decision was we would wait for a decade and then evaluate," she said.

The findings were clear, she said: "The policy has made no difference. There was a trend of declining deaths that has continued." (source)

Now, I'm no right-wing gun nut... I don't like them, don't want one in my house and for the life of me can't figure out why anyone would ever need a automatic gun that can't be used for hunting anyway --But I'm also intelligent enough to know that the Constitution guarantees citizens the "right to BEAR arms" and to know that criminals are not obtaining guns through legal channels and aren't registering them. I do believe that tougher gun laws and restrictions would have absolutely no effect on the hoodlums that want a gun or on lowering crime rates... It seems from this extensive study that is indeed the case. Even criminals that partake of the buy-back program are most likely using the money to buy a bigger gun...

This seems even more poignant today as I just heard Philadelphia's police chief Sylvester Johnson is at Capital Hill discussing gun control to "fix" the astronomical homicide rate here...

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Okay, this would be much easier to verbally debate than it will be to write...but here goes, the condensed version:

Problem #1:

"Abortion" is often couched as a "feminist" issue.

Problem #2:

The politics of "feminism" are to promote equality, yet the "right to privacy" (which is found no where in the Constitution) for a woman in this situation creates superiority.

Problem #3:

If a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want the baby and the father does...he has no say and no legal recourse.

Problem #4:

If a woman wants the baby and the father doesn't...he has no say and no legal recourse (other than pay for the next 18 years).

Do you see the problem with the logic here (taking life/death out of the equation and speaking in purely political-legal terms)? This is not equality. It's a woman's choice until its born and then a $108,000+ payout for the father -even if his choice was NOT to be a father?

Here's the only fair compromise... Your belief ("pro-life" or "pro-choice") goes on your Driver's License. If you should become pregnant and you are pro-life you're entitled to child support, BUT if you're pro-choice and your man didn't want the kid...you gracefully take nothing.

In all the years I went to Presbyterian Church every Sunday (approximately 20), I never heard a political message from the pulpit.

The ACLU has set the example that you can engage freely in political speech and keep your tax-exempt status...so churches seem to be following suit. There are now 47 churches under investigation for political "sermons" bestowed upon their congregations during the 2004 election.

The one procuring the most attention is SoCal's All Saints Church (a liberal Episcopalian church).

"Freedom of speech and freedom of religion have been assaulted by this act of the IRS, and I think my people want to be heard in court," said Ed Bacon, rector of All Saints, to a packed church on September 17." (source)

Here's where I'm a little lost...maybe someone can help me out here... There is no freedom of speech issue --there is only a money issue, right? Any pastor, priest or "minister" that received his credentials from an ad in the back of Rolling Stone magazine is free to say whatever they wish, but if they choose to do that they have to pay taxes.

"Legally, pastors can push for amendments, encourage people to vote and shape political dialogue in myriad ways. They can’t campaign for or against a particular candidate, nor can they endorse a political party. In exchange for following these rules, churches don’t pay taxes, and donations to them are tax-free. The agreement has been part of the tax code since 1954..." (source)

Is this all that complicated? All Saint’s minister can say whatever he likes from his bully-pulpit, but he also has to pay the price when his parishners can no longer deduct their tithing to his establishment. This really is about putting your money where your mouth is.

Anyway, Barrack (whose name is a linguistical mix of Iraq and Osama Bin Laden which is very unfortunate for a politician at this juncture in history) is now admitting he is considering a 2008 run at the Oval office.

Considered to be the new rising star in the DNC (though he voted for live birth/partial birth abortion), we have to wonder...what will Hillary do? She can't make him her VP --there is no way she can count on labor union Democrats to vote for a Woman and a Black man on the same ticket... So will she sabotage him in the primaries? How could she bury the first African American to (seriously) run for president on the Democratic ticket in a PC manner?

...There's no room for debate here by the way. House, M.D. usurps all three Law and Order's for the Best of TV title belt. I just adore Hugh Laurie and his wonderfully misanthropic manner, and the show is a breath of fresh air because of its unique, completely UN-PC scripts...

If you haven't seen it-- You must! You can buy the first two seasons, rent them at Blockbuster (but they make you rent like 6 different discs and totally rip you off), or there's a marathon on USA October 29th.

*Hugh Laurie is hosting Saturday Night Live October 28th (though I might not watch it for fear he may say anything political).

Monday, October 23, 2006

The writers at Barron's, the money people, are predicting the GOP hangs on to control of both the House and the Senate this November... They are making their predictions based on a state-by-state analysis of the races and the money going into them. What they didn't factor in is no matter what the polls say, Democrats are notoriously bad about actually getting to the polling locations…

"...We expect the Republican majority in the House to fall by eight seats, to 224 of the chamber's 435. At the very worst, our analysis suggests, the party's loss could be as large as 14 seats, leaving a one-seat majority. But that is still a far cry from the 20-seat loss some are predicting. In the Senate, with 100 seats, we see the GOP winding up with 52, down three

We studied every single race -- all 435 House seats and 33 in the Senate -- and based our predictions about the outcome in almost every race on which candidate had the largest campaign war chest, a sign of superior grass-roots support. We ignore the polls. Thus, our conclusions about individual races often differ from the conventional wisdom....

Is our method reliable? It certainly has been in the past. Using it in the 2002 and 2004 congressional races, we bucked conventional wisdom and correctly predicted GOP gains both years. Look at House races back to 1972 and you'll find the candidate with the most money has won about 93% of the time. And that's closer to 98% in more recent years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Polls can be far less reliable. Remember, they all but declared John Kerry president on Election Day 2004..." (source)

I am not disputing there are disillusioned voters that might stay him because they are frustrated with both parties (big government and not enough dead terrorists in Iraq)...but if the GOP does retain control, I am going to have so much fun reading through the left'o'sphere on November 8th.

The other day I was reading about a large demonstration in Germany that was held by Neo-Nazis in solidarity with a jailed singer... many of the articles refer to them as "Neo-Nazis" once and then they are referenced as "right wing" protestors...

"...The far-rightists were protesting the detention of an obscure singer, Michael Regener. He also goes by the name "Lunikoff."

He was sentenced in December 2003 to three years and four months in jail after a court ruled his band "Landser" was a criminal organization that spread racial hatred. He began his sentence in April 2005 after losing legal appeals.

Israel's ambassador to Germany, Shimon Stein, said in an interview published on Saturday in the Neue Osnabruecker Zeitung newspaper he was concerned that Jews were not feeling safe in Germany. "They are no longer able to pursue their Jewish way of life here freely," Stein said" (source)

"This week, Germany's coalition government promised to spend more money on the fight against right-wing extremism." (source)

I couldn't help but think about the global juxtaposition...The "far right" in Germany are anti-Semites, but it's the far left in America that despise the Zionists...

Sunday, October 22, 2006

...That's what lawmakers are calling for after the airing of an American serviceman being killed by a sniper in a video aired on the 24 hour news network.

Because of various ways the story was being relayed, it was unclear when the story broke if reporter Michael Ware was doing a voice-over or if he was actually embedded with terrorists. It was indeed a video that was obtained by CNN and not shot by them. This makes the situation a bit more tolerable, but still not acceptable.

Americans have come to expect that the enemy can find aid and comfort within the walls of Al Jazeera. We all know that terrorist propaganda tapes with be aired there with impunity. But CNN? It's obvious they lean heavily to the left (with the exception of Lou Dobbs), but I never imagined they'd engage in helping al Qaeda promulgate their recruitment videos...

FNC was wrong when they reported that CNN faded to black before the American soldier was actually killed. They may have done that when it aired on Anderson Cooper's show, but the video that was online did not fade to black before the soldier slumped to the ground... The version that The Man and I first saw DID NOT CUT TO BLACK when the soldier was hit. (You can see the edited version here.)

"...Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, along with two other lawmakers representing California in the House, wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, calling the footage "nothing short of a terrorist snuff film," the report said.

The U.S. news network has become "the publicist for an enemy propaganda film" by broadcasting the video obtained from an insurgent group, Hunter was quoted as saying Friday in San Diego, California.

He called for the Pentagon to oust any CNN reporter "embedded" with U.S. troops in Iraq, saying the average American Marine or soldier would conclude that CNN is not on their side after seeing that film..." (source)

Regardless of the reason that CNN gives for airing the tape, I know the real reason. It's the embodiment of a leftist sentiment found in the comments when I first posted about this... The basic feeling being [if it's okay to show "insurgents" being killed, why is it wrong to show a soldier killed?].

This is a prevailing attitude in the left that has no moral compass. That doesn't see that terrorists are wrong and the U.S. is right. That continues to believe that the "insurgents" are disgruntled Iraqis that are pissed Americans are still in their midst and not comprehending the number of Syrian and Iranian Jihadis that are flooding the borders.

Airing this video is a direct action of those that don't see right and wrong. Those that are so "world minded" they want to look at the terrorists point of view and find ways to empathize with it.

Pull their embeds from Iraq --they don't deserve to be mingling with and protected by our troops.

Saturday, October 21, 2006

...and there is yet to be the same level of furor as the the MSM and the left'o'sphere created over the Plame sorta-leak. Why is that do you suppose?

"...The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee has suspended a Democratic aide's access to classified materials, citing concerns the staffer might have leaked parts of an intelligence assessment on terrorism to the media.

The highly unusual move drew sharp protest from the panel's ranking Democrat, Jane Harman of Venice, who said in a statement Friday, "There is no evidence to suggest that the professional staff member in question did anything wrong."

With an election in less than three weeks that could swing control of Congress, the exchange reflects a major deterioration in relations on a committee that traditionally has sought to avoid partisan clashes. One congressional official said the committee was in "meltdown."

Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) said he suspended the aide's access to secret intelligence documents after learning that the employee had requested a copy of a high-level intelligence estimate days before details of the document showed up in the press.

In a letter to Harman released by Hoekstra's office Friday, Hoekstra said, "I cannot assume that this was mere coincidence."

The aide was identified by other congressional officials as Larry Hanauer. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of a pending investigation into the leak, said Hanauer had held positions with the departments of Defense and Homeland Security before joining the professional staff of Democrats on the House intelligence panel about two years ago...." (source)

This isn't using the name of some washed up desk jockey at the CIA...this is NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. I still believe the NYT should be held accountable for printing it, but to release information that could harm our troops to further political agenda is sick.

Now we just have to wait and see how many Democrats knew about Foley --and how special interest groups received the information just in time for an October surprise...not that the media will report any of it...

Friday, October 20, 2006

This isn't hyperbole and I'm so upset right now I shouldn't even be typing... I just watched a video on CNN that The Man wouldn't even believe was real until he saw it with his own eyes...

A CNN reporter [voices over(?)] a video with "insurgents" in Iraq as they target and shoot at our troops with sniper rifles as the reporter drones on about the clear shot they have from that vantage point --then one soldier is hit and falls forward...

OMG...has CNN lost all fucking scruples? DO CNN viewers not even realize they are watching a CNN reporter SIT THERE AND REPORT while American soldiers are being targeting and killed?!

There HAS to be something illegal about this.

This is the description of the video:"Iraqi insurgent snipers wait and document killing U.S. soldiers. CNN's Michael Ware reports."

I'm trying to get a direct link o the video, but in the interim if you want your head to explode...go to CNN and under videos click "A sniper's-eye view of Iraq".

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press is one thing --a reporter from an American news organization standing by while American soldiers are killed seems quite another...

Ted Turner and Michael Ware should be GITMO's next inmates. This is disgraceful...even for CNN.

As you all cry and moan that terrorists and murderers are not being handled with kid gloves -and that the accommodations at GITMO (complete with mango chicken and Qur'an hammocks) don't measure up to that of the Waldorf Astoria...

Do you have an alternative? What you may have missed while you were making your protest signs and sniffing the fumes from your Sharpie marker, is that no other countries will take their own citizens...

"...British officials recently rejected a US offer to transfer 10 former British residents from Guantanamo to the United Kingdom, saying it would be too expensive to keep them under surveillance, the newspaper said, citing documents made public this month in London.

Britain has also staved off a legal challenge by the relatives of some prisoners who sued to require the British government to seek their release, The Washington Post said.

While all British citizens in Guantanamo were freed starting in 2004, Britain has balked at allowing former legal residents of the country to return, the newspaper said.

Germany and other European allies, which have spoken out against Guantanamo, also have rejected accepting prisoners from the facility, the Post said." (source)

So, they want the facility closed --but they won't take responsibility for their own terrorists.

What would you bleeding hearts have us do? Release them? And what would you say to the families of the U.S. Soldier or Marine that is then killed by that same detainee in Afghanistan or Iraq? Do YOU take responsibility? Do YOU support their family? What is your grand plan? Do tell...

A new school trend this year seems to be "suck all the fun out of school". I've noticed it at my kids' school... It started with "no peanuts" because of the kids with allergies (there isn't a "peanut free table" there's a "peanut table"), then it went to nothing could be sent in that was made in a factory that ever made anything that contained peanuts, then it was no snack sent in that wasn't healthy fruit, yogurt or dried fruit (of course trail mix is out because of the nuts), and now we just got letters saying that even at birthdays and school parties parents can only send in vegetables, fruit, rice cakes and water... (All of this making both lunch time and snack time way more expensive).

Way to suck the life of being a kid. No cupcakes for your birthday? No Halloween candy at the Halloween party? You can't even talk to The Man about all this or he blows a gasket...

Now, this hasn't happened at our school yet, but I wouldn't be surprised:

"...Officials at an elementary school south of Boston have banned kids from playing tag, touch football and any other unsupervised chase game during recess for fear they'll get hurt and hold the school liable.

Recess is ''a time when accidents can happen,'' said Willett Elementary School Principal Gaylene Heppe, who approved the ban.

While there is no district wide ban on contact sports during recess, local rules have been cropping up. Several school administrators around Attleboro, a city of about 45,000 residents, took aim at dodgeball a few years ago, saying it was exclusionary and dangerous.

I volunteer at my kids' school library now and I'm really enjoying it (You get to scan all the books with that cool grocery store scanner that I've always wanted to play with...) Of course The Man is thrilled that I finally have a job and it's volunteer...LOL

Anyway, I have been reading a lot during the time when there are no classes returning and checking out books and came across some interesting things I didn't know (it would seem even a well-read adult can learn something in an elementary school library...)

On February 23 (the day before the official start of the 1991 Gulf War) the U.S. moved war ships to the Kuwait beaches and Navy SEALS went ashore to plant explosives (all times set for 1:00am). They also set explosives in the water which they triggered with machine guns on their return from the shore. This action threw off the Iraqi command and two divisions were diverted from the front lines to speed east to the beaches of Kuwait city to counter a supposed beach invasion --the next day the Allied ground invasion began.

Also during the Gulf War, the U.S. Army Rangers were training regular Army troops for reconnaissance missions that would be carried out behind enemy lines. In some instances soldiers would be as close as 10 feet from enemy positions, yet remain undetected. As a strong message meant to completely demoralize Iraqi troops the Rangers parachuted into Iraq in broad daylight...just because they could.

Others may have known about stuff like this, but I was a self-absorbed 20 year old during this war --and the only thing I thought about was my boyfriend at the time being called to go (yeah, the Dems did the whole draft scare thing back then too).

I am not sure if anyone involved with this movie (that was released on DVD Tuesday) had anything to do with the first 'Behind Enemy Lines' that features Owen Wilson in Serbia, but I liked that one too.

This movie was obviously made before North Korea tested the nuclear missile, but is based on Kim Jon Il testing a nuclear missile. The entire plot is apropos to what is transpiring in the world right now. Now, I realize that even though they hired a Navy SEAL as a military adviser and he was very hands on, all you military types will say how unrealistic it is (I know this because every military movie I watched with my father he pointed out all the unrealistic things...)

The premise of the movie is an intriguing one...

In September 2002 there was a mushroom cloud seen on satellite over North Korea. Colin Powell quickly said it wasn't nuclear and it had to do with a hydraulics project. Condi Rice said it was a train bridge explosion and the PM of South Korea said it was a natural cloud formation. North Korea denied the explosion all together. Fishy? That's what the writer of this movie thought...

He sets his story at this time in 2002 --proposing the fictional story (based on these actual facts) that a U.S. navy SEAL team went into North Korea and demolished the missile before war could ensue.

All scenarios of war with North Korea along with projected casualties are explored. This definitely gets a thumbs up from me -- the story, the filming and the Navy SEAL eye candy ;)

Thursday, October 19, 2006

"...HAVE we lost the will to win wars? Not just in Iraq, but anywhere? Do we really believe that being nice is more important than victory?

It's hard enough to bear the timidity of our civilian leaders - anxious to start wars but without the guts to finish them - but now military leaders have fallen prey to political correctness. Unwilling to accept that war is, by its nature, a savage act and that defeat is immoral, influential officers are arguing for a kinder, gentler approach to our enemies.

They're going to lead us into failure, sacrificing our soldiers and Marines for nothing: Political correctness kills." (Read the entire piece)

This isn't a game. This isn't a socialistic minded soccer team where all the kids get a trophy. If we lose this war the consequences are dire...but I guess not offending anyone is more important than...say, living.

I recently received this email:

"R.I.P. Habeas Corpus:Maybe I'm just a crybaby, but this *is* the same president who shouted, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" to an aide who expressed concern during an 11/05 meeting on its renewal that a number of provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act undermine the Constitution.Oh, well. At least I can still keep my widescreen TV and watch Monday Night Football!"

And I sent this reply:

"Are you for real? Since when does Habeas Corpus apply to terrorists caught in a desert trying to kill our Military?! Isn't it bad enough this country has sunk so low we give pedophiles minimum sentences and worry that Meagan's Law offends their fragile sensibilities...that we protest the death penalty for child killers while it's legal to kill over 3 million innocent babies a year, that we secure tons of rights for terrorists that believe the Qur'an has commanded them to kill us while we accuse our soldiers and Marines of rape and murder for trying not to get killed themselves?! Habeas corpus is a CONSTITUTIONAL right --and the CONSTITUTION only applies to CITIZENS of the United States --not murdering Muslim freaks."

It's not just our left-wing politicians...many in the general public seem to have fallen into this group-think that demands a PC gentleman's war. How very sad for us.

It is a mixed up world when John Walker Lindh doesn't get charged with treason and now a far left defense attorney that clearly committed treason against this country gets a paltry two years in jail.

"...Radical lawyer Lynne Stewart was sentenced Monday to 28 months in prison for helping a terrorist client communicate with his followers, a far less severe sentence than the 30 years sought by federal prosecutors.

As U.S. District Judge John Koeltl delivered his sentence in a packed federal courtroom in Manhattan, Stewart lifted her eyeglasses and dabbed at tears as her husband hugged his daughter tightly. An hour later, the 67-year-old lawyer emerged from the federal courthouse holding hands with her granddaughter and grandson and, to loud cheers and applause from hundreds of supporters, declared a victory of sorts over the Bush administration.

"The judge did a fair and right thing," she told a thicket of reporters. "This is a great victory against an overreaching government."

And of her sentence, she sounded almost jaunty: "As my clients say to me, 'I could do that standing on my head.' " (source)

Her client was Sheikh Omar-Abdel Rahman who was the "mastermind" of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing --after which they said, ["Next time it will fall to the ground"].

"Koeltl made it clear that Stewart had committed a serious offense by smuggling messages between her client, Sheikh Omar-Abdel Rahman, and his followers in the Middle East, including a statement withdrawing the sheikh's support for a cease-fire with the Egyptian government. Stewart's actions, Koeltl said, constituted "extraordinarily severe criminal conduct" and material support for terrorism and could have had "lethal consequences." (source)

As I have said in the past, Michael Savage is often a bit radical for me...but the other day he said that [America will never win the war on Islamofascism until all the far-left lawyers are locked up]...and I think I have to agree.

I know everyone wants to think we have the cure all at our fingertips and it's the evil Bush-machine that's keeping this magic from the people...but aside from the truthful fact that there has never been an embryonic stem cell success (while there have been many using adult stem cells), now new research is yielding information that embryonic stem cells create tumors...

"EMBRYONIC stem cells turn into tumors when injected into human tissue and therefore cannot be used to treat diseases, a visiting US expert said today.

Prof Sherley, from Boston's Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), today said scientists had failed to reveal problems with embryonic stem cells that would prevent them being used in humans.

The unique feature of embryonic stem cells that allowed them to turn into any cell of the body, known as pluripotency, created a problem when researchers injected them into tissue, Prof Sherley said.

“When you put them in an environment where they can grow and develop, they make lots of different kind of tissues,” Prof Sherley said. “This tumor formation property is an inherent feature of the cells. And all you have to do is simply inject them into an animal tissue – this happens at very high efficiency.

“And although some might say we can solve the tumor problem down the road, that's equivalent to saying we can solve the cancer problem and we may, but that's a long time coming.” (source)

I realize it's just human nature to want to place blame...a kid has autism and the parents blame vaccines, a child dies and parents sue the doctor, and now Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and child diabetes sufferers can just Blame Bush...

...were on TNT last night and I can't help but wondering what the reasoning is behind this. Wasn't the goal of civil rights to promote equality? Isn't a show like this solidifying that there's a separation? Shouldn't actors just be actors --and not Black actors, white actors, Asian actors, etc? Doesn't this just provide fuel for those that would say "if there were a WHITE movie awards show the country would be up in arms"?

...forget my feet touching the floor; they don't even go over the side. And though it looks like some kind of freaky velour in the picture, it's actually microfiber and the softest thing you've ever felt. And yes, since we got cream when we have two young boys I guess we were smoking crack when we bought it...

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Ads are being run in political parameter state Missouri that imply the new Stem cell amendment being put to voters in November will outlaw human cloning... Therefore the measure is doing very well in the polls.

The truth about the amendment is that it seeks to secure money for human cloning "outside the womb" and would prevent any government institution from refusing funding for the radical measure. Missouri is a "pro-life state", which seems to enforce the opinion that voters are in favor of this measure because they think they are going to stop the possibility of human cloning from aborted stem cells, when in fact that will be voting for the most radical jump in stem cell research to date.

"...Ostensibly set as a “cloning ban,” the Missouri initiative, by re-defining “cloning” as “somatic cell nuclear transfer,” and specifying that it is the “creation of a human being,” echoes the linguistic deceptions of most other proposed “cloning bans.”

The actual text of the initiative reveals that it bans only cloning that would allow a child produced to live, so-called "reproductive cloning". At the same time, the initiative would constitutionally protect cloning to create embryonic stem cells for research, allow the buying and selling of ova and grant the biotech industry unchecked authority and tax-payer funding.

The language of the referendum is so questionable that it was taken to a Missouri court of appeals in early 2006 where it was revealed that the text had been accepted by the Secretary of State as it came direct from cloning proponents.

Nikolas T. Nikas, president and general counsel of the Bioethics Defense Fund, said in court, “This ballot summary is grossly deceptive to Missouri voters. It's like saying that an Initiative 'bans the death penalty' when the measure actually bans only the use of the electric chair, while creating constitutional protection for death by lethal injection.”

Missouri’s voters have heard from the well-funded pro-cloning side the usual exploitive claims that “therapeutic cloning” is not really cloning and that it is the answer to heart rending serious illnesses and diseases, such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.

The website of the Missouri Coalition for Life-Saving Cures, features photos and stories of children with devastating diseases, and implies that the cure is to be found in embryonic stem cells derived from cloned embryos, and appeals for a “yes” vote. Spokesmen of the biotechnology industry, however, admit that there is still no evidence whatever that embryonic stem cells are likely to make any progress against these or any diseases.

Opponents of the amendment have pointed to the dangers to women’s health and rights if the amendment goes through. The Missouri initiative will allow payments for ova, a practice that is illegal and considered unethical even in those countries that enthusiastically endorse therapeutic cloning. Many have pointed to the danger of exploiting economically disadvantaged women if payments are allowed for ova.

The enormous volume of ova required to allow the scientific research community to engage in full-scale cloning experimentation would require a constant supply of thousands, perhaps millions of ova...." (source)

I'm not telling Missouri voters how to vote --that's not how a Democracy works...what I am saying is that amending the Constitution is a serious undertaking that should be thoroughly researched and never decided by watching a few advocacy ads. Research is your friend!